The nonsense of “verification of recommendations” by investment experts themselves
Market forecast information such as “10 recommended stocks by experts” and “exchange rate predictions for the end of the year” is flying around, but it's mostly just being said.
There is no denying the evidence-based market predictions themselves, but since they are rarely verified, I think that miscellaneous remarks have been tolerated.
The article I shared at the beginning is an article I've verified myself, and it's good to hear that, but I feel that it's stinky.
The point is that overall market sentiment was good, and after cutting out only half a year, “the winning rate was high,” I wonder.
Furthermore, it's not simply about comparing the forecast time with the current point to see if it's positive, and it's not fair if you don't compare it to the Nikkei Average or the industry average.
Rather, I felt that “experts” who post their own verification articles at this timing cannot be trusted.
You might be able to trust them if they publish verification articles even when predictions are far off, but I don't think they'll publish them.
Fund managers of active funds seem to be applicable, but Mr. Fujino of Leos said that there are few fund managers who send messages by name in Japan.
Other than Mr. Fujino, the only fund manager that comes to mind is Nakano Haruhiro, a former Saison Asset Management.
It comes to mind quite a bit when I expand the scope to people who can be trusted, who are regularly disseminated about investments.
Please let me know if you know someone you can trust who continues to conduct honest self-verification on a regular basis.
Disclaimer: Community is offered by Moomoo Technologies Inc. and is for educational purposes only.
Read more
Comment
Sign in to post a comment
HONDA N-ONE : Mabuchi-san only says normal things, so I can trust him
That's because people in this industry who only talk about normal things are rare
HONDA N-ONE : I skimmed through the article, but what don't you like?